General Phoenix Metro Discussion Thread

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

That's pretty cool! I wonder if it can somehow be incorporated into the Legends Entertainment District?

If the leaders of that group had any intentions of creating something that remotely resembled an actual district, rather than just slapping the name onto what's nothing more than an a media company whose goal is simply selling ad space, I would agree. 2 years later and there's still no VIP parking lot at the site of the former Madison and St. James Hotels, is there? Perfect spot for a Legends Square and activities like 'the Grand Canyon Experience' that blend entertainment with authentic Arizonan experiences.

But, since that will never happen, I guess Hance is fine. That overblown plan for the park will never happen in its full form, so might as well piecemeal it together and hope one day there's enough density in surrounding neighborhoods to make use of it.

[PHX31]

Here are some great stats I just saw on KTAR.com related to the Super Bowl and Phoenix:

• Valley Metro's light rail doubled its previous record of most passengers in one day. 126,000 people rode the trains on Saturday which topped its previous high of 66,000. That was set December 7, 2013 when a Beyoncé Concert and ASU game caused a spike in travelers.

• The Phoenix Convention Center had 177,000 visitors over the weekend for the NFL Experience. The previous record was set in 2010 when 110,000 people visited the center for a Major League Baseball event.

• Sky Harbor estimated nearly 200,000 passengers were at the airport Monday due to a large number of Super Bowl fans leaving the Valley. The airport averages 100,000 passengers per day.

• There were more than one-million social media hits for "Phoenix" during Super Bowl week.

• Rental Car Companies in the Metro-Phoenix area had three times the average amount of rental car customers returning vehicles Monday.


I can't believe that the record light rail # of passengers in a day was broken by almost double. I rode it downtown on Friday and it was packed. I wonder how many actually paid... or was Coors Light offering rides for free on Saturday?

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by PHX31

• The Phoenix Convention Center had 177,000 visitors over the weekend for the NFL Experience. The previous record was set in 2010 when 110,000 people visited the center for a Major League Baseball event.

2011. It was the Fanfest associated with the All Star Game.

[HX_Guy]

*Sigh*

Everytime I go to another city I get depressed, at least from an urban standpoint. Was in San Diego over the weekend and stayed in the Gaslamp District and wow...what else do you even need? Place is just fantastic for walking around, transit, buildings, food, shopping and so on and so on. Plus now they just put in these Decobike stations, same thing we used in Paris over the summer where you rent a bike from on of the stations with your credit card and then you can return it at any other station...they have stations all over the place. We rented one at the entrance to Balboa Park, rode all around the park, and then over to Little Italy. Really really nice.

Oh, and this building, in Phoenix would pretty much be guaranteed to be razed for so they could build the new development there. Not in San Diego, they incorporated it into the new building. Awesome.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Plus now they just put in these Decobike stations, same thing we used in Paris over the summer where you rent a bike from on of the stations with your credit card and then you can return it at any other station...they have stations all over the place. We rented one at the entrance to Balboa Park, rode all around the park, and then over to Little Italy. Really really nice.

Phoenix has the same type of system. Grid bikes are all over Downtown & Midtown and will soon expand to Tempe & Mesa.

[PHX31]

Yeah, there are a bunch of stations of grid bikes strategically placed all over central/downtown Phoenix. There is a "station" at the end of my block and I try to monitor its use. Seems like it's used at least a little bit.

As far as incorporating the historic building, that looks awesome. Why is something like that so hard here? Spineless/baseless city hall? Bad/lazy/shallow pocket/greedy/incompetent developers that can't figure out different ways of turning profits?

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Yeah, there are a bunch of stations of grid bikes strategically placed all over central/downtown Phoenix. There is a "station" at the end of my block and I try to monitor its use. Seems like it's used at least a little bit.

As far as incorporating the historic building, that looks awesome. Why is something like that so hard here? Spineless/baseless city hall? Bad/lazy/shallow pocket/greedy/incompetent developers that can't figure out different ways of turning profits?

Your second question is why I get so frustrated with the proposals for projects in Phoenix. Every major city has developers who are looking to profit from their projects; yet, they still build projects that add to the built environment, whereas so many of Phoenix's require some kind of sacrifice to be made. In some cases, that sacrifice is small in the grand scheme, but for others, it ends up almost being a net loss for the community when you consider what is being razed to make way for single-use projects with boring architecture. It can be - and is - done elsewhere, so there's no reason not to hold Phoenix to the same standards.

Not every project needs to have a historic facade attached to it, but when you're working on a property with 3+ healthy, historic structures, for example... then, we should expect some creative design that integrates them into the final product. And, when demolition is the only option, then we should expect that whatever is lost - be it retail or other space - at least be replaced in the new design. The "better than nothing" attitude continues to persevere and when projects are challenged, such commentary is labeled as negativity instead of justified criticism. It's this attitude that will continue to keep the city behind, for the process of 'demo-sit-maybe build when the time is right' to continue, etc.

[KevininPhx]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Your second question is why I get so frustrated with the proposals for projects in Phoenix. Every major city has developers who are looking to profit from their projects; yet, they still build projects that add to the built environment, whereas so many of Phoenix's require some kind of sacrifice to be made. In some cases, that sacrifice is small in the grand scheme, but for others, it ends up almost being a net loss for the community when you consider what is being razed to make way for single-use projects with boring architecture. It can be - and is - done elsewhere, so there's no reason not to hold Phoenix to the same standards.

Not every project needs to have a historic facade attached to it, but when you're working on a property with 3+ healthy, historic structures, for example... then, we should expect some creative design that integrates them into the final product. And, when demolition is the only option, then we should expect that whatever is lost - be it retail or other space - at least be replaced in the new design. The "better than nothing" attitude continues to persevere and when projects are challenged, such commentary is labeled as negativity instead of justified criticism. It's this attitude that will continue to keep the city behind, for the process of 'demo-sit-maybe build when the time is right' to continue, etc.

I'm not challenging any of you for liking historic buildings. But I think my viewpoint may be shared by some city decision-makers. I hate old buildings and think that one is SD is hideous. Phoenix is a modern city and, in my opinion, should look like one.

That's not to say everything old should be knocked down. But most old buildings don't need to be saved, either.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I'm not challenging any of you for liking historic buildings. But I think my viewpoint may be shared by some city decision-makers. I hate old buildings and think that one is SD is hideous. Phoenix is a modern city and, in my opinion, should look like one.

That's not to say everything old should be knocked down. But most old buildings don't need to be saved, either.

What makes Phoenix a modern city? Just because it plowed over its history doesn't mean its roots should be ignored.

When you go to different cities, which buildings do you remember? I sure as hell don't define a city by the number of blue-glass skyscrapers it has. It's usually older buildings with defined architecture, or the lowrise, older building stock which is conducive to bars, clubs, and creative uses that give a city its flavor.

Any city in the world can turn out buildings like OCPE, and do them taller and better. There's so many people who think Phoenix is a "new" city, and that is no culture... why do you think that is? Because the buildings that gave Phoenix its identity have been bulldozed for generic replacements.

Not only do these buildings give a sense of place, they are also one of the only ways for the creative class to do business. There's a reason Roosevelt Row is filled with tenants, while new construction projects like Roosevelt Point, Skyline, Tapestry, etc. sit empty. The rates are just far too high, and they'll probably sit empty until a chain feels there is enough demand to open up. A city without small businesses, and local establishments, is again one without a soul.

Lastly, it isn't always about the aesthetics of the building. It's about the fact that historic buildings were simply built better - they were built for the human scale, not for the car. They also tell a story regardless of how they look. The GreenHAUS building has a storied past as an LGBTQ bar; it's a part of the history of LGBTQ people in Phoenix - that there was a place they could go and belong. If turned back into a bar, or used as a gallery, I'd be much more willing to visit it knowing that history than if the establishment sat in a glass box.

I don't think every old building needs to be saved. But, given how much has been lost in Phoenix for dirt lots, I think considerable attention should be given to any proposal that requires demolishing a healthy structure. The project at 4th St/McKinley is a great example of a project that is worth tearing down a nondescript older building, even though it was fully leased. The benefits of the project - ~200 units of density added to the core, live/work spaces on the ground level, a very good design, etc. - make that sacrifice worthwhile. But, too many times, more is sacrificed than is given back, and every time that happens, Phoenix loses more of its story and more of its history and more of its chance to ever become a world class city.

[Jjs5056]

The image below shows what happens when you try to 'modernize' a city by demolishing its older buildings. In 2006, 1st and 2nd Streets were completely lined with buildings from Garfield > Moreland. 90% is now dirt lots. Just think of how much more vibrant Roosevelt Row would be if these buildings remained in place and were now filled with breweries, galleries, theatres, etc? Think of the development that might've spurred on the empty lots in between. And, that's just looking at a very small area at a pretty recent point in time. Going back further in time, the city gets denser and denser. It shouldn't be that way.

[KEVINphx]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I'm not challenging any of you for liking historic buildings. But I think my viewpoint may be shared by some city decision-makers. I hate old buildings and think that one is SD is hideous. Phoenix is a modern city and, in my opinion, should look like one.

That's not to say everything old should be knocked down. But most old buildings don't need to be saved, either.

Sad I again have a doppelganger on this forum going around sharing his dreadful opinions that bear a near opposite view of my own!

Would dread to see what you find to be a "beautiful" structure . . . and if you have no regard for the city of Phoenix' history then step aside. I get so tired of people not born here going on about how this is a "modern" city etc . . . just because you have no personal connection to the history and built environment of this city doesn't mean it has no value - and THAT is the view that too many transplants in power in this city believe. . . . should keep their asses back destroying their own old cities instead of the little history Phoenix still has left.

[soleri]

Old buildings are the scaffolding that permits new construction. Clearcutting Phoenix's urban fabric has been an absolute disaster that leaves empty lots, despair, and a city that doesn't grow itself since it's no longer organic. Every successful city I can think of has evolved this way. That is, it grew from old bones that permitted new growth. The few cities that have sprung up in totally reclaimed brownfields are often criticized precisely because they appear sterile and uninviting. Vancouver, for example, has several areas in and around False Creek that are simply too boring to attract visitors whereas the funky Gastown area is alive despite its reputation for having sidewalks full of drug-addled bums. I like to say that every old building is worth its weight in gold. Developers don't like them but the smarter ones understand how crucial they are. Gaslamp in San Diego, LoDo in Denver, Bricktown in Oklahoma City, Deep Ellum in Dallas, Pearl in Portland, Belltown in Seattle have leveraged these assets to create spectacular urban neighborhoods. I've been screaming about this for over 30 years but Phoenix does not learn. Its developers are simply too focused on the quick score.

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by soleri

Old buildings are the scaffolding that permits new construction. Clearcutting Phoenix's urban fabric has been an absolute disaster that leaves empty lots, despair, and a city that doesn't grow itself since it's no longer organic. Every successful city I can think of has evolved this way. That is, it grew from old bones that permitted new growth. The few cities that have sprung up in totally reclaimed brownfields are often criticized precisely because they appear sterile and uninviting. Vancouver, for example, has several areas in and around False Creek that are simply too boring to attract visitors whereas the funky Gastown area is alive despite its reputation for having sidewalks full of drug-addled bums. I like to say that every old building is worth its weight in gold. Developers don't like them but the smarter ones understand how crucial they are. Gaslamp in San Diego, LoDo in Denver, Bricktown in Oklahoma City, Deep Ellum in Dallas, Pearl in Portland, Belltown in Seattle have leveraged these assets to create spectacular urban neighborhoods. I've been screaming about this for over 30 years but Phoenix does not learn. Its developers are simply too focused on the quick score.

This.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by soleri

Old buildings are the scaffolding that permits new construction. Clearcutting Phoenix's urban fabric has been an absolute disaster that leaves empty lots, despair, and a city that doesn't grow itself since it's no longer organic. Every successful city I can think of has evolved this way. That is, it grew from old bones that permitted new growth. The few cities that have sprung up in totally reclaimed brownfields are often criticized precisely because they appear sterile and uninviting. Vancouver, for example, has several areas in and around False Creek that are simply too boring to attract visitors whereas the funky Gastown area is alive despite its reputation for having sidewalks full of drug-addled bums. I like to say that every old building is worth its weight in gold. Developers don't like them but the smarter ones understand how crucial they are. Gaslamp in San Diego, LoDo in Denver, Bricktown in Oklahoma City, Deep Ellum in Dallas, Pearl in Portland, Belltown in Seattle have leveraged these assets to create spectacular urban neighborhoods. I've been screaming about this for over 30 years but Phoenix does not learn. Its developers are simply too focused on the quick score.

It's crazy how, in spite all that's been lost, it's STILL a fight to keep buildings in tact even when the alternative is an empty lot. So many associate the destruction of downtown with urban renewal, but looking at historic aerials, the most damage was done around 2006 IMO. It's frustrating to know that less than a decade ago, there was enough left of the built environment to create an interesting, connected downtown, and now there are acres upon acres of dirt. And, still we tear down. The 314 Roosevelt house is being bulldozed to make way for a buyer that might never come. And, that's in an area that is nationally recognized for its art scene... any other city would value the treasures of such a neighborhood. North and south of Roosevelt have been gutted...there really isn't much left before Roosevelt "Row" is essentially Artisan Village and 5th and 6th Streets between Roosevelt and Garfield. How pathetic.

[soleri]

Taz Loomans, another Phoenix-to-Portland exile, writes in her blog about ways of adding density without building high-rises. She touches briefly on Roosevelt Row and the attendant controversies. City-making is more an organic process than an imposed vision. You're not going to get city planners willing it into being. You require older buildings, actual community, and a few shared values. Zoning, as we know, can be a killer here but the real issue is whether there's something in the city besides vacant lots with "high-rise potential" signs. If there is, cherish it.
http://bloomingrock.com/2015/02/02/5-ways-to-add-density-without-building-high-rises/

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by soleri

Taz Loomans, another Phoenix-to-Portland exile, writes in her blog about ways of adding density without building high-rises. She touches briefly on Roosevelt Row and the attendant controversies. City-making is more an organic process than an imposed vision. You're not going to get city planners willing it into being. You require older buildings, actual community, and a few shared values. Zoning, as we know, can be a killer here but the real issue is whether there's something in the city besides vacant lots with "high-rise potential" signs. If there is, cherish it.
http://bloomingrock.com/2015/02/02/5-ways-to-add-density-without-building-high-rises/

Taz's suggestions work well in a city that is working with a built environment that provides an existing residential base. In these neighborhoods, changing single-family units into duplexes can have a cumulative impact.

Downtown Phoenix, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of having older, occupied multifamily housing throughout its communities. Filling the dirt lots of Evans Churchill with even 4-family houses will never bring the needed density for the neighborhood to support retail businesses and feed into the downtown core.

There are plenty of areas where compact, lowrise residential with walk-ups would work just fine; this is the type of development I was referring to in the other thread which you seemed to not support. These could work as infill on lots where taller/denser development just doesn't make sense - for example, the empty lots along 3rd/2nd/1st Streets between Garfield and McKinley.

However, for downtown to be successful, it needs to pack density in that is just not possible through these tactics. We're essentially starting from scratch. Major parcels need to be developed into 5+ story projects; there's just no comparison between a duplex and a 200+ unit apartment.

I also think that the development patterns in Phoenix don't necessarily deserve this type of critique. Very few proposals are over 5 stories, whereas the type of anti-community, cold skyscrapers to which Taz's comments apply are typically in the 20+ area. Defining 5-story projects as highrises is simply NIMBY talk disguised. There is nothing anti-urban or anti-community about projects at those heights. And, they are essential to achieve the goals of downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.

Where Phoenix needs to be more diligent is in the design of these 5-story projects. The height is not an issue. But, for many projects, there is an opportunity to build synergies with existing retail by including ground level, active uses. Far too often, these projects are either single-use, creating a deadzone, or include large retail spaces that are unaffordable to the downtown small business market. What's needed are projects like 4th/McKinley: 5 stories, parking via alleyway, and 10 live/work units that provide affordable space for the communities' creative class. If every lot in EC was filled with a similar project, we'd have a community worth being proud of, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise that downtown would be better off with duplexes.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Taz's suggestions work well in a city that is working with a built environment that provides an existing residential base. In these neighborhoods, changing single-family units into duplexes can have a cumulative impact.

Downtown Phoenix, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of having older, occupied multifamily housing throughout its communities. Filling the dirt lots of Evans Churchill with even 4-family houses will never bring the needed density for the neighborhood to support retail businesses and feed into the downtown core.

There are plenty of areas where compact, lowrise residential with walk-ups would work just fine; this is the type of development I was referring to in the other thread which you seemed to not support. These could work as infill on lots where taller/denser development just doesn't make sense - for example, the empty lots along 3rd/2nd/1st Streets between Garfield and McKinley.

However, for downtown to be successful, it needs to pack density in that is just not possible through these tactics. We're essentially starting from scratch. Major parcels need to be developed into 5+ story projects; there's just no comparison between a duplex and a 200+ unit apartment.

I also think that the development patterns in Phoenix don't necessarily deserve this type of critique. Very few proposals are over 5 stories, whereas the type of anti-community, cold skyscrapers to which Taz's comments apply are typically in the 20+ area. Defining 5-story projects as highrises is simply NIMBY talk disguised. There is nothing anti-urban or anti-community about projects at those heights. And, they are essential to achieve the goals of downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.

Where Phoenix needs to be more diligent is in the design of these 5-story projects. The height is not an issue. But, for many projects, there is an opportunity to build synergies with existing retail by including ground level, active uses. Far too often, these projects are either single-use, creating a deadzone, or include large retail spaces that are unaffordable to the downtown small business market. What's needed are projects like 4th/McKinley: 5 stories, parking via alleyway, and 10 live/work units that provide affordable space for the communities' creative class. If every lot in EC was filled with a similar project, we'd have a community worth being proud of, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise that downtown would be better off with duplexes.

I stopped reading that blog after the author started to write condescendingly about Phoenix from self-imposed exile in Portland. Nevertheless, I recall some advocacy of duplexes even when it was a Phoenix-based blog. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I know many people who like living in apartments or condos, but I don't know anyone who likes duplexes. They occupy an uncomfortable middle ground between the autonomy of a detached single family home and the anonymity of an apartment building. I can't imagine people being lured Downtown for the privilege of living in a duplex.

Regardless, it's funny how that blog post is being used by the Save Roosevelt Row movement to argue against "high rises." In actuality, nothing being proposed for Roosevelt meets any widely-accepted definition of a high rise.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I stopped reading that blog after the author started to write condescendingly about Phoenix from self-imposed exile in Portland. Nevertheless, I recall some advocacy of duplexes even when it was a Phoenix-based blog. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I know many people who like living in apartments or condos, but I don't know anyone who likes duplexes. They occupy an uncomfortable middle ground between the autonomy of a detached single family home and the anonymity of an apartment building. I can't imagine people being lured Downtown for the privilege of living in a duplex.

Regardless, it's funny how that blog post is being used by the Save Roosevelt Row movement to argue against "high rises." In actuality, nothing being proposed for Roosevelt meets any widely-accepted definition of a high rise.

Exactly. There's a reason that the concept is all but extinct. The few duplexes in Evans Churchill are the only structures that haven't seemed to find a creative use. If anything, duplexes complicate the already fragile state of downtown by being unattractive as a living arrangement, and not conducive to adaptive reuse.

The word high-rise has been thrown around like crazy since the recession. Anything multi-story has been described as a high-rise in the press (example: AZCentral's report on Edison on Central; 5 stories) and now that seems to have spread into the attitudes of the community. 5 stories has widely been accepted as the tipping point between residential projects that connect with the street and ones that add little vibrancy despite additional height. I'm not sure why that notion has suddenly come into question, nor does it really matter. 5 stories is more than appropriate for the majority of vacant lots in Evans Churchill, and quite frankly, even that might be too low for building the needed residential base when you consider how many lots are banked for things like the PBC.

Since when did the Roosevelt Row neighborhood become NIMBYs? Between their ageist fight against The Row on 2nd and now their fight against 5-story "high rises," it's pretty shocking to me that a neighborhood in center of the city is so irrationally anti-development. The owner of Songbird was quoted as saying that he knows people need to be added downtown, but that "apartments and condos aren't the way." Why are these people self-deprecating? Why do they not want their businesses, and future businesses similar to their own, to succeed by fostering a community where living in the area in which you play is an option? It's all so bizarre to me.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Since when did the Roosevelt Row neighborhood become NIMBYs? Between their ageist fight against The Row on 2nd and now their fight against 5-story "high rises," it's pretty shocking to me that a neighborhood in center of the city is so irrationally anti-development. The owner of Songbird was quoted as saying that he knows people need to be added downtown, but that "apartments and condos aren't the way." Why are these people self-deprecating? Why do they not want their businesses, and future businesses similar to their own, to succeed by fostering a community where living in the area in which you play is an option? It's all so bizarre to me.

I love Songbird, but my jaw dropped when I read that. Some voices in the movement are saying they're not anti-development, but I've read several postings from people who seem to think that things should stay exactly as they are -- vacant lots and all. Or maybe they want to see Evans-Churchill rebuilt as the type of neighborhood it once was. Without a time machine, that will never happen, so it's best to move forward by filling those vacant lots at higher densities appropriate for their proximity to Downtown and light rail.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Taz's suggestions work well in a city that is working with a built environment that provides an existing residential base. In these neighborhoods, changing single-family units into duplexes can have a cumulative impact.

Downtown Phoenix, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of having older, occupied multifamily housing throughout its communities. Filling the dirt lots of Evans Churchill with even 4-family houses will never bring the needed density for the neighborhood to support retail businesses and feed into the downtown core.

There are plenty of areas where compact, lowrise residential with walk-ups would work just fine; this is the type of development I was referring to in the other thread which you seemed to not support. These could work as infill on lots where taller/denser development just doesn't make sense - for example, the empty lots along 3rd/2nd/1st Streets between Garfield and McKinley.

However, for downtown to be successful, it needs to pack density in that is just not possible through these tactics. We're essentially starting from scratch. Major parcels need to be developed into 5+ story projects; there's just no comparison between a duplex and a 200+ unit apartment.

I also think that the development patterns in Phoenix don't necessarily deserve this type of critique. Very few proposals are over 5 stories, whereas the type of anti-community, cold skyscrapers to which Taz's comments apply are typically in the 20+ area. Defining 5-story projects as highrises is simply NIMBY talk disguised. There is nothing anti-urban or anti-community about projects at those heights. And, they are essential to achieve the goals of downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.

Where Phoenix needs to be more diligent is in the design of these 5-story projects. The height is not an issue. But, for many projects, there is an opportunity to build synergies with existing retail by including ground level, active uses. Far too often, these projects are either single-use, creating a deadzone, or include large retail spaces that are unaffordable to the downtown small business market. What's needed are projects like 4th/McKinley: 5 stories, parking via alleyway, and 10 live/work units that provide affordable space for the communities' creative class. If every lot in EC was filled with a similar project, we'd have a community worth being proud of, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise that downtown would be better off with duplexes.

The very little organic urbanism that downtown Phoenix has will not magically seed forth green shoots of five-story buildings. Going back to that other thread, my argument is that the Big Score is a virtual necessity for developers. Land banking itself is relatively cost-free but a modest development of five-story buildings can't justify the initial investment. Speculators play a game of liar's poker against one another, essentially bullshitting themselves that Phoenix was inevitably going to explode - just wait! - in order to flip parcels back and forth. Tax Loomans is likely more interested in central Phoenix rather than downtown for that reason. Absent major projects related to the biomedical campus or ASU, downtown development will depend on monocultures of apartment complexes. Roosevelt Row advocates understand this issue with heavy hearts. There's no likely organic urban neighborhood in or near downtown because of Prop 206 and the self-justifying world of real-estate bullshit.

On the flip side, someone like Matt Poole should not be zinged for letting the Coronado Hotel languish, or allowing his lovely duplex (!) on 3rd Street to remain shuttered. I don't know him or his finances, but he's probably overextended in his ventures. Let's give him this credit: those buildings still exist. If it was any major player, those buildings would probably have been demolished by now. Developers, by and large, hate historic buildings because it's so much easier to deal with a blank slate. Except blank slates have this nasty habit of staying blank for a very long time. Funny, that.

Just to be clear: I do think five story buildings would be optimal for a real urban neighorhood, but not the suburban Broadstone kind. They would need to be human-scaled rather than autocentric. I can't imagine them penciling out in downtown, however.